MONUMENT NO. 385187

Site of a Roman villa at Redcastle Farm, Pakenham, partly excavated in 1952 and 1953. The site can probably be identified with one first discovered in the 18th century (sources suggest variously 1769 and 1776, though the former is clearly a guess) when a mosaic floor was uncovered (see also TL 96 NW 10). Apparently "it was thought very handsome, and gentlemen came many miles to see it". It was said to have been badly damaged through trampling by cattle. The location was rediscovered in the winter of 1951-2 by Basil Brown, who noted a surface scatter of tesserae and dug a test pit. More extensive excavation followed in the late summer of 1953, uncovering probably about half the building, which comprised an apsidal-ended central room with a short wing on one side (and presumably something similar on the other side). Several phases were noted, the earliest being a slight rectangular structure located beneath the central room. There is little clear dating evidence for the phases. Finds suggest the presence of a hypocaust, though none was observed in the excavations. Also found were tesserae, painted wall plaster, window glass, pottery and glass vessel sherds, roof tiles (both tegulae and imbrices) and a chalk block suggested to represent the base for a statue or shrine. A fragment of polished Purbeck marble was also found. Five complete pots were found buried into the floor in various places, one instance comprising one pot upside down inside another, both featuring the word "Vetula" (translated as "little old man" or little old woman") inscribed on their bases. Two pits of post-Roman date were found, their fills included Roman pottery and other finds such as animal bones and potsherds identified as Saxon. The site lies in a ploughed field and is marked by a scatter of Roman brick and tile.

TL 902695. A Roman villa at Redcastle Farm was partially investigated in 1951/2 by B Brown of Ipswich Museum and excavated in 1953. The first phase of occupation was represented by flimsy footings of flint, evidently the base of a timber building.

The second and main phase consisted of a house of seven rooms, the principal room being apsidal and containing the fragmentary remains of a decorated circular mosaic panel. (This was probably the pavement of "great beauty" found here in 1776). The apsidal room appeared to be a central feature, with wings on the north-east and south-west sides. Almost all walling had been robbed, but the walls had been about 2 feet wide, of flint nodules bonded with mortar. It was impossible to say whether they continued to their full height as such or provided a base for a timber and daub superstructure. Some of the rooms were decorated with painted wall plaster and lighted with glazed windows, but only the apsidal room showed any signs of a mosaic floor. Sufficient tiles remained to indicate a roof of tegulae and imbrices, and broken box-tiles suggested the presence of a hypocaust, although this was not located.

Phase 3 consisted of the addition of outer walls extending from each side of the apsidal room to form two further rooms. The villa was occupied from the late 1st or early 2nd century to the late 3rd or early 4th century, and the paucity of finds and lack of any evidence of destruction make it likely that it was then simply abandoned.

Finds included five glass vessels, some Samian ware and coarse pottery of good quality. Although fairly large, the building gives an impression of mediocrity, representative perhaps of a flourishing farmstead. (2-3)

A scatter of Roman brick and tile in a ploughed field at TL 90126950 marks the site of the building. (4)

About 250m to the west of the Roman site is evidence for the remains of a Saxon settlement. it is possible that the robbing of the masonry of the villa may have occurred during the Saxon period.

The site is clearly of importance but the full extent of the villa coplex is not known, and records suggest that the preservation of the remains is poor. Unless further evaluation establishes the extent of the monument and at least moderate survival, scheduling cannot be recommended. (9)